A Profound Act of Love Open,
Honest Discussion

[COMMENT: This is another email to someone in
response to their reply to my critique of Obama. The
original piece below is from another respondent. So you
might want to read it first.
E. Fox]

Dear XXX,

Yes, my comments [see the piece below]
are shocking, right in tune, I think, with the state of America. But I do
not plan to be shocking, only truthful. Sometimes truth is shocking. You
complain that my utterances are not fact but opinion. Well, they are
certainly my opinion, but that does not make them less than fact. Whether
they are fact or not is, surely, a matter to be tested by an open discussion
between us and others on the matter. Any one of us could be wrong.
Hopefully, all of us are willing to be tested in that.

You are, in my humble and very fallible opinion, wrong about
Obama. My opinion is that he is deliberately hiding his past from the
public. He could resolve the whole issue by letting the public see his
alleged real birth certificate. My understanding is that the certificate
which people can see is of a type which can be given out to persons who are
not natural born citizens, so it proves nothing at all.

Why has he spent something approaching $1,000,000 in legal fees (funded by
the Globalists or the Democratic Party?) to hide his birth certificate, his
education history, and his military history -- if not to keep something
secret? Why do the American people trust anyone to handle the levers of
massive US power who will not open the vaults of his relevant past to public
view? That is insanity, cowardice, gross ignorance, or ...... on our
part.

Why do the courts, over and over,
refuse to honor petitions to have the matter reviewed in an open and honest
way, where both sides would have to present their evidence? Why do the
courts say that these petitioners "have no standing". No standing!? Any
American citizen has standing to petition the government for redress of
grievances (see
first amendment in the Bill of Rights). Especially on any issue which
affects us all. One more trashing of the Constitution.

I am not myself a constitutional
scholar, but am becoming one. I am in conversation with some folks who are
constitutional scholars, some of whom are professors and argue cases before
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has indeed been changing laws, but not
legally. They began that practice during the 1950's, and pulled off an act
of treason in 1962 with the Engle v. Vitale case, in which they outlawed
prayer. That was just for starters. One of them said, "The
Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." That is
treasonous grab for power. The Constitution means no such thing. (By
"treason", by the way, I mean a clear violation of
theiroath to
protect, defend, and be submitted to the Constitution in their governing of
us.)

The Constitution means what the
people under God
(not the Court) say it means. They gutted the legitimacy of the government
-- according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and of
common law for centuries (as per the Magna Carta which is part of the common
law in America). The Declaration asserts that our rights come from God.
That is the most basic
foundation of our government. Inviting God to butt out means that our
rights are determined by the government, which can then take them away.
They are no longer unalienable. And the government is
taking them away. As with "hate-crime" laws -- violating the very heart of
our Constitution, the providing of a level playing field upon which any
issue could be debated freely, with candor, mutual respect, and in the
search for truth.

Treason is a nasty word, but that describes what the Court
did and continues to do -- gathering autocratic power to itself, throwing
out all checks and balances which it could get its hands on. And we
ignorant Americans have let them get away with it. Engle v Vitale was the
first decision in Supreme Court history for which the court cited no
precedent -- because there was none, none at all. They made up the 'no
prayer' nonsense whole cloth. And we the people bought into the lie that
they can change the law. The president should have said what Andrew Jackson
and Abraham Lincoln said in similar cases, "NO!". They refused to enforce
a court decision because they were independent of the judiciary and could,
when necessary, come to their own opinion about what is and is not
constitutional. Ditto for the legislature. It is not bound by an opinion
of the Supreme Court about what is constitutional.

The same malfeasance has been repeated in Massachusetts and
California in the illegal mandating of homosexual marriage. The courts were
used to set up a scam, which allowed the governors to say, "The court made
me do it." They lied. The courts made them do nothing at all. Both state
constitutions are rock solid clear about who can change the law, and the
courts are not included. Read them. Romney and Schwarzenegger were not
ignorant. They were treasonous liars.

There is nothing, nothing at all, in the national
Constitution which says that the US Supreme Court can on its own throw out a
law. If you want to know what American government is about, I would
suggest reading the Declaration, Constitution, and a good dose of original
source document early American history. CBS will not tell you.

You dismissed and reviled the facts which I proposed, but
then you quote what you believe to be facts as though they were infallible.
From where do you get the idea that 97% of Americans trust Obama's
eligibility? I was at a meeting of some 3000+ people recently, probably all
of whom would have agreed with my statements.

My statement about Obama may have been offensive to you. I am not intending
to offend. If I speak the truth offensively, that is
my problem. If truth offends, that is the hearer's problem. But I
am sure enough intending to speak the truth as I understand it. I say
nothing but what I am willing to put up for open discussion. I am not
interested in being told that my words are venal (my dictionary links that
to bribery), or devoid of balance. They are written in plain English and
are open for testing.

That kind of truth-testing is what courts are for. But
Obama is not allowing we, the people, to pursue that course. That is
another act of malfeasance. So I hope that America will wake up before it
is too late to stop the drift toward totalitarianism without, sooner or
later, another civil war. The issues before us are that deep.

Having said all that, please understand that I love you and
the others who disagree with me. But loving does not mean abandoning what I
believe the truth to be. It does mean insisting on an open arena in which
all persons can express their views, on the condition that we are each
willing to let the others critique our view -- with a hope of arriving at
the truth of the matter. That is precisely what our Constitution was
written (as directed, yes, by God) to provide
for America. Any one of us could be right or wrong, and the only way to
find out is to have the open discussion -- which is, surely, a profound act
of love, and for which we should be willing to die (thank you,
Patrick Henry).

Addenda: No one has yet responded to my challenge from below....

If you were building a
bridge over a chasm, and advertized for a contractor to build it, and if
the contractor said that he had a license to do so, and degrees for an
education which supported his claims, but that he would not allow you to
see any of that, what would you do?

Blessings,
Earle

Original
Email Critiquing ObamaI am responding in fuchsia to the
email in black, which is a different correspondent from the one above..
E. Fox

> i think
it's wonderful to live in a country and time where people are free > to
throw up any possible objection they can come up with to current >
programs, ideas, trends, and personalities--even when so many of those >
objections, upon investigation, turn out to be unfounded.

Agreed. Is what I say below unfounded?
> > i think it's strange to live in a
country and time where someone who calls > for changes in a system that
we all know has got problems should be so feared.

If you are referring to Obama as the
"someone", I disagree. We rightly fear a man who promotes the unfettered
murder of babies in the womb. We rightly fear a man who, for all practical
purposes, lies to the people about his birth and eligibility to be
president. We rightly fear a man who continues to centralize
government rather than disperse its power back to the most local authority
possible. We rightly fear a man who trashes the very covenant document
by which he is to be kept under the control of the people who elected him.

> > i
think it's sad to live in a country and time that has developed the best
> system that mankind has yet known for expressing the people's will, and
yet > should be so mistrusted.

Agreed, but probably for opposite reasons. My
sadness is the reasons for the mistrust, as partially given above. If Obama
and his handlers have their way, we will shortly be under the dominion of
persons we do not elect, who will have a monopoly on all coercive power, who
will control the money and economy of America from outside America, our
globalist friends. Is that not a reason for sadness? We indeed used to
have the best system in the world. But it has been coopted by persons who
have no use for it, mainly the Wall Street financial folks who have bought
out the system and run it through control of our money system (Fed Reserve,
etc.). > > i'd like to be able to let the
courts work all this out, and trust in their > judgment. if i couldn't
do that, i'd give up my complaining, for my own > peace of mind, and
think about moving to another country.

What have the courts to do with working this
out? Our constitution does not give them the authority to do so. They have
no authority to change the law, no authority to rewrite the Constitution.
Only we the People can change that document. Their authority extends only
to the case at hand, not to the general law. Beyond the case at hand, they
have only advisory authority. Both the legislature and the executive powers
have the right and duty to ignore the court on a decision which they
consider to be contrary to the Constitution. That is part of the meaning
of having three independent branches of government, separation of powers.

The actual, de facto
ruling powers in all three branches are pretty much in cahoots on the
issues, and so can cooperate on working out their schemes, such as the
enforcing of illegal marriage document changes in both Massachusetts and
California. But America is
so deeply brainwashed that it cannot stand up and protect its own freedom
from scam after scam.

I repeat my query for one and all:

If you were building a
bridge over a chasm, and advertized for a contractor to build it, and if
the contractor said that he had a license to do so, and the degrees for
an education which supported his claims, but that he would not allow you
to see any of that, what would you do?

If a man cannot come
clean about his past when applying for the authority to rule over us, then
his attempts deserve nothing but contempt and rejection. We are not
talking about fun and games, we are talking about holding the levers of
power which affect the lives and futures of millions of persons, really
billions. What kind of people have we become? Have we lost our minds?

We, the
People, are not obligated in the least to respect Obama's privacy on the
matters of meeting the Constitutional requirements to stand for President.
He is under the highest obligation to the people to be open and honest with
us. He has not done that. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
hiding his education, military history, his birth cert, just about every
relevant aspect of his personal history.

There will be
bloodshed in our streets if this kind of behavior persists at the highest
levels of government.We are
right back to 1776, with little significant leadership to lead us out of
this moral and spiritual morass. Except God Himself and His servants.
(You might take a look at www.aipnews.com,
and Alan Keyes.)

Every American ought to know these
three documents. And ought to know the
Biblical basis upon which alone they could ever have been written.

The good news
is that Montana, Texas, and several other states are beginning to tell the
Fed that they will no longer honor the Fed's misuse of the Constitution
beyond the stated limits of the Fed's power. Thanks be to God!